Second thoughts

You know, I'm beginning to think we've misunderstood the GOP. It's not populated with nutsoids bullies who would be shunned in any society that didn't have its collective head up its ass as a result of being uninformed when it's not being misinformed by a media composed largely of boot-licking wusses. Rather, it's populated with brilliant performance artists, satirists who will any day now throw off the disguise and cry out in one huge gleeful voice "GOTCHA!" I mean, how else to explain the utter contempt for logic and the phenomenal depths of self-pitying paranoia?

For example, Greg Palast noted that the blog of the Rethuglican National Committee linked to an article in the Manchester (NH) Union-Leader claiming that "people who hate Republicans" have all kinds of dastardly plans for the RNC convention including releasing "swarms of mice," giving phony directions, and throwing pies. These are described as attempts to "terrorize" the delegates and the people as "junior terrorists." Mice. Throwing pies. Terrorism. See the connection? (The whole bizarro piece is here.)

Piling absurdity on top of inanity, the GOP link refers to "protestors supporting John Kerry" even though the article does not call them that.

Oh, there's more. The level of satire on this RNC blog page is endless. Another item mocks DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe for saying the party was not supporting the NYC protests.

Really? Then explain how Nashville circuit designer Cecily Letendre decided against joining her fellow travelers to NYC and instead just donate money to the Kerry campaign.

That's right, they found one person - one - among the others mentioned in a New York Times article on people going to the demo who thought it would be more effective to donate to Kerry and claimed that as proof that the marchers are "part and parcel of the Democrat apparatus." (Oh, and note the clever way they worked in the phrase "fellow travelers." These people are a hoot.)

Having just finished Eric Alterman's book What Liberal Media? (I know, I know, hardly hot off the presses), this, however, may be my favorite - particularly because of the subtlety involved.

And Speaking of Media Bias…
You know the drill – drop by Google News and enter ‘Ed Gillespie,’ then count the articles headlining DNC boss Terry McAuliffe. The liberal bias is sooooo glaring it’s almost embarrassing.

A double-dose of subtlety, in fact. The first, mundane, one being the safe knowledge that most of the people who read this won't actually do the search, they'll just internalize the implication (which is an additional subtlety, in fact, since the item doesn't actually claim anything, it just hints at a conclusion without having to take responsibility for reaching one - a common GOPper tactic but still worth noting). The other, deeper, one is that even if the facts implied were true they would not show what it's implied they show.

That is, suppose you did google "Ed Gillespie" and found a lot of the results headlined Terry McAuliffe. What that could indicate is that the media doesn't write about McAuliffe without mentioning Gillespie as well. How would that show a "liberal bias?"

Of course, it wouldn't. It's a fantasy. If you wanted to search for bias in name-dropping, you'd not only have to google "Ed Gillespie" to look for hits headlining Terry McAuliffe, you'd also have to do the reverse, googling McAuliffe and looking for Gillespie headlines. And then you'd have to search for "Ed Gillespie" NOT "Terry McAuliffe" and also the reverse to look for articles that mention just one without the other.

But of course that would take some minimal understanding of logic and some minimal concern with accuracy, so ignoring it was no problem for this crowd.

Footnote: I actually did the searches I just mentioned. It only took a few minutes even with my dialup connection. These are the results:

"Ed Gillespie" - 1360 hits
"Terry McAuliffe" - 1510 hits
"Ed Gillespie" NOT "Terry McAuliffe" - 1170 hits
"Terry McAuliffe" NOT "Ed Gillespie" - 1290 hits
"Ed Gillespie" AND "Terry McAuliffe" - 167 hits

In the first two cases, I scanned the top 60 headlines. In each case, not one headline mentioned the other by name, although some did headline the other party. If you can find bias in those numbers, you're ready to be a GOP activist.